What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]

What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]

Heidi Cullen, climate expert and correspondent for The Weather Channel and formerly a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado explains why scientists are so sure that our burning of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels is causing a disruption in the earth's climate systems.

Previous Comments

There was a similar but more general overview released several months ago by Penn State On Demand, available here (http://climate.ondemand.psu.edu/viewer.php?id=03052008081001) or on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OycDcuT3Grc). The first speaker, Dr. Richard Alley, is a little… awkward, and the video will recieve some flak for showing Michael Mann, but it’s still worth mentioning here.

Directly referring to this video, since I KNOW the inactivists are going to dispute it, the original paper on isotope ratios is available at (http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf). Feel free to publish a rebuttal.

I dont know how one can dispute isotopes. There is no doubt, CO2 is increasing, you can measure it with a simple IRGA. As fossil fuels have long since lost all their unstable isotopes, the changing ratio in the atmosphere is a clear give away that its from fossil origin. I cant imagine how anyone can dispute that.

No, Gary’s content to smear Dr. Cullen (with relevant expertise) as an expert while citing David Evans, with no relevant expertise (electrical engineering and being self-contradictory on model use isn’t a climatology doctorate), of the coal-lobbying Lavoisier group, as an expert.

It’s funny how threatened the trolls are by a diminutive and attractive woman with a relevant PhD and an impressive record of real academic research in the area of which she speaks.

Gary’s “leading climate Experts” can make no such claim. Tim Ball’s mail-away doctorate was in geographical history and he did NO relevant research and published NO related papers during the extent of his uninspiring academic career. Monckton, bless the poor boy, did a diploma in journalism and sharpened his science “credentials” writing editorials for right-wingy UK tabloids.

I have nothing against editorial writers - there’s a quite charming one in the mirror in the morning when I shave - but I’d hardly set any of us up as “experts” in a debate with Ms. Cullen.

Which would go for you, too, Gary: I suggest that, intellectually at least, you pick on someone your own size. Heidi Cullen would clean your clock - on meteorology, climatology and, I suspect, on any other science issue you chose to bring up.

Excerpt:
Even if CO2 levels had set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years, temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).

Heidi’s had peer-reviewed research published. Rush is a pundit. I fail to see how smearing her record while accusing us of smearing back gets you any high ground, Gary. Please explain this rhetoric to me.

Actually it would claim that GW is perfectly natural.
Caused by PDO cycles which are in turn caused by Solar cycles.
Read the razor again. It does not say anything about blaming cycles in a complex system on one insignificant component that is Loosely (very loosely) co-incident with temperature fluctuations.
Simplest explanation is usually the right one – remember?

It is the stated purpose of this Blog.
I am just trying to fit in.
You guys smear enyone and everyone that disagrees with AGW weather it is justified or not, so…..
Besides, it is more than just a little fun to play a bit with silly topics like this one.
Come on. Heidi is an Eco nutbar. Admit it.

Before joining The Weather Channel, Dr. Cullen was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. She received a bachelor’s degree in engineering/operations research from Columbia University in New York City and went on to receive a doctorate in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Her dissertation focused on understanding the impacts and dynamics of the North Atlantic Oscillation, an important climate influence. As a post-doc, she received a NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship and spent two years working at the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction.

Excerpt:
Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:

Of course I could go on but we all know that in reality, Scientists don’t know anything for sure and many are simply trying to protect reputataions that will be in ruins shortly.

It’s not your fault, Spencer wrote it, you just bought into it wholesale and refuse to adjust your beliefs in accordance with the inconsistencies pointed out to you. After all, you didn’t put those inconsistencies there in the first place, it was that nasty, rotten Spencer that you so gleefully cite. Please.

http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/waah-they-wont-debate-us/

Self-explanatory, Gary. Science isn’t settled in public debate any more than government policy is settled via cockfights.

Both of your statements are correct.
And irrelevant.
If you were to read any of the posted papers/articles you would know that CO2s ability to cause warming is maxed out.
Do a little homework on the logarithmic decrease in climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration.
It will no doubt astound you.

You seem to have confused “climate sensitivity” and “radiative forcing”. The former is a constant, the latter varies logarithmically with CO2 concentration.

And just to make sure you’ve done your homework, what happens to the overall forcing (a logarithmic curve over concentration, as you noted) with exponentially increasing CO2 concentrations over time? Does it increase, decrease, stay the same?

He can only do this for a minute at a time, and can’t find time to write out a simple yes/no answer to a high-school math problem, but has the time to write up a simple excuse several times as long.

For anyone making mathematical arguments and asking others to “Do a little homework” based on those, this should LITERALLY have been as quick to answer as “what happens when I multiply X by Y and then divide the result by Y?”. (The analogy is more apt than you think; logarithms are defined* as the inverse of exponentials). Because, you know, such condescension implies that he’s ‘done a little homework’.

One has to wonder if his lack of basic math skills has bled into his claimed understanding of how radiative forcing (or was that climate sensitivity? What was the difference again, Gary?) responds to CO2 concentration.

Brian:
You ask:
what happens to the overall forcing with exponentially increasing CO2 concentrations over time?
Dumb question since CO2 concentration is increasing at a moderate linear pace.
However, lets play make believe anyway.
If the CO2 increased at an exponential pace, temperatures would increase at a decreasing pace to a maximum level when it forcing ability was saturated.
This point is not much above current values so the amount of increase would be neglegable.
There would come a point when the concentration would become toxic. At something over 5000ppm according to the international standard for air quality in mines.

All academic however since it isn’t and won’t.
Have you read the latest studies on CO2 out gassing in the Atlantic caused by PDO cyclic shifts?
Probably not since it would not fit you preconceived conclusion that all of our problems are caused by Cars and evil consumption.

I did say “somthing above 5000.”
Good post though. It sheds some raality on the issue.
I have seen many posts over time that claimed that CO2 was a toxic polutant that was going to choke us all to death very soon if we don’t get those taxes in place.

this is the most useless series of posts I have ever seen on DeSmog. Troll-baiting is never very productive, but this is ridiculous. Nobody is going to change Gary’s mind, folks. He can’t distinguish between credible sources and hacks, and doesn’t recognize a dead horse when he sees it. He will continue to cling to the belief that somebody is trying to put one over on him. His recent “AGW is in its death throes” approach is based on the same old debunked claims that have been addressed over and over and over … Sad, isn’t it?

but I can’t take seriously anyone who believes that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. (Faith-Based Evolution, Roy Spencer, TCS Daily, 08 August 2005). In my opinion, that casts doubt on anything he says re: science of any kind.

Anyone that believes in the scientific method must allow for all possibilities that have not been proven false.
I don’t subscribe to intelligent design either, or creation, but until there is proof one way or another, none can be absolutely denied.
That said, it is a pretty weak criteria for dismissing the credibility of a scientist on a completely disconnected area of study.
One is physical science and the other is theology.
Using that criteria I imaging we could eliminate most of the people involved in the climate debate.
I had thought you were above such shallow thought Fern.
I really respected you opinion. Sorry.

I have done considerable reading on the subject of so-called “Intelligent Design,” and have drawn my own conclusions as to its status as a theory, ie: without basis in any plausible scientific evidence. Anyone who claims to be a scientist and doesn’t dismiss it out of hand casts doubt on his/her adherence to the scientific method in any area of study. This is not shallow. It is a basic principle of vetting someone’s credibility. In my own field of study, if I discover that someone has been sloppy in citing sources or overlooking significant evidence, a flag goes up & I double-check everything when consulting that person’s research.

If you have trouble with that, that’s your problem. I won’t lose any sleep for having lost your respect on this. It’s one of the reasons that I have a reputation for being thorough.

By your standards, anyone that believes in a God is incompetent.
The would include Einstein, Davinci, Tesla, …….
Pretty much all notable scientists. Physical science and theology are two separate issues.
Although AGW does closely resemble the Creation science movement, it is not the same.
I don’t think you can defend this one Fern.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.